Halborg & Anor v Halborg & Ors [2022] EWHC 1621 (QB) (23 June 2022)

Halborg & Anor v Halborg & Ors [2022] EWHC 1621 (QB) (23 June 2022)

The court found that the claimants had made multiple applications that were totally without merit, justifying the imposition of limited and general civil restraint orders. The judge's exercise of discretion in marking applications as TWM, imposing restraint orders, and awarding indemnity costs was correct and not plainly wrong. Arguments of procedural irregularity, unfairness, or excessive scope of orders were rejected as unarguable. Permission to appeal was refused except for limited grounds relating to costs of certain applications where there may be an arguable issue.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1621 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Scott Halborg; Claimant/appellant: Halborg Limited; Defendant/respondent: Albert Halborg; Defendant/respondent: Eileen May Halborg; Defendant/respondent: More 2 Life Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hollingsworths Solicitors Limited; Defendant/respondent: Gregory Hollingsworth; Defendant/respondent: Stephen Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused except for limited grounds relating to costs of certain applications.
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Case Management, Costs Orders, Fee Remission, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Litigation Management Civil Restraint Orders Case Management Costs Orders Fee Remission Permission to Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Halborg

Claimant/appellant

Halborg Limited

Claimant/appellant

Albert Halborg

Defendant/respondent

Eileen May Halborg

Defendant/respondent

More 2 Life Limited

Defendant/respondent

Hollingsworths Solicitors Limited

Defendant/respondent

Gregory Hollingsworth

Defendant/respondent

Stephen Taylor

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications made by the claimants were totally without merit
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for Limited Civil Restraint Orders (LCRO) and General Civil Restraint Orders (GCRO) was met
  3. 3 Whether the costs orders, including indemnity costs, were justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants had made multiple applications that were totally without merit, justifying the imposition of limited and general civil restraint orders. The judge's exercise of discretion in marking applications as TWM, imposing restraint orders, and awarding indemnity costs was correct and not plainly wrong. Arguments of procedural irregularity, unfairness, or excessive scope of orders were rejected as unarguable. Permission to appeal was refused except for limited grounds relating to costs of certain applications where there may be an arguable issue.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused except for limited grounds relating to costs of certain applications.

Orders

  • Limited Civil Restraint Orders against both claimants upheld
  • General Civil Restraint Order against first claimant upheld